1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

___________

No. 95-2066

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri.

DeWayne Claiborne, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: January 25, 1996 

 Filed: February 14, 1996 ___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

DeWayne Claiborne appeals the sentence imposed by the district

court1 after he pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine base (crack)

with intent to distribute on October 17, 1994, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We affirm.

In addition to Claiborne's sale of crack on October 17,

Claiborne's presentence report (PSR) described other incidents

during September and October 1994 in which Claiborne possessed

crack or another seller divided crack-sales proceeds with him.

Based on the amount of crack Claiborne sold on October 17 and the

amounts involved in the other described incidents, the PSR

recommended holding Claiborne accountable for a total of 2.24 grams

of crack. Over Claiborne's objection that the other incidents did

not constitute relevant conduct, the district court adopted the
-2-

PSR's offense-level calculation and sentenced him to 30 months

imprisonment, the bottom of the Guidelines range.

In this timely appeal, Claiborne relies on United States v.

Logan, 54 F.3d 452, 455 (8th Cir. 1995) to support his argument

that the district court erred in adopting the facts set forth in

the PSR without holding an evidentiary hearing to address his

objection, and without requiring the government to produce evidence

proving the facts in question by a preponderance of the evidence.

The government argues that no error occurred, and contends further

that Claiborne waived the right to appeal his sentence in his plea

agreement.

We agree with the government that the district court was not

required to hold an evidentiary hearing to address Claiborne's

objection, because he did not dispute the occurrence of the events

detailed in the PSR; instead he challenged their legal

significance, arguing that the facts at issue did not constitute

relevant conduct. Cf. United States v. Rodamaker, 56 F.3d 898, 902

(8th Cir. 1995) (district court not required to hold evidentiary

hearing when defendant does not challenge facts in PSR, but only

challenges inference to be drawn from facts). Because Claiborne

did not raise any challenge to the facts set forth in the PSR, his

reliance on Logan is misplaced. See Logan, 54 F.3d at 455 (when

defendant objects to factual allegation in PSR, district court may

not adopt PSR's challenged facts until objection has been heard and

government proves accuracy of facts by preponderance of evidence);

cf. United States v. Beatty, 9 F.3d 686, 690 (8th Cir. 1993)

(district court may accept as true all factual allegations in PSR

not objected to by parties).

Based on the undisputed facts, the district court did not

clearly err in finding that the other incidents described in the

PSR constituted relevant conduct because they were either

reasonably foreseeable acts in furtherance of jointly-undertaken
-3-

criminal activity, or they were part of the same course of conduct

or common scheme or plan as Claiborne's offense of conviction. See

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1), (2); United States v. Ballew, 40 F.3d 936,

943 (8th Cir. 1994) (standard of review), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct.

1813 (1995); United States v. Young, 992 F.2d 207, 210 (8th Cir.

1993) (noting that undisputed facts in PSR indicated defendant's

actions were part of same course of conduct or common scheme or

plan); see also United States v. Sheahan, 31 F.3d 595, 599 (8th

Cir. 1994) (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, comment. (n.9) for proposition

that two or more offenses are part of common scheme or plan if they

share a common factor, such as common purposes or similar modus

operandi).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.